2/ First, the EO doesn't change anything about US policy on space resources and it's a policy I generally agree with. Since 1960s, US has consistently said you can use space resources (water, regolith, minerals, etc) w/out violating Art. II of the OST.
3/ Put plainly, you can fish in the ocean without claiming ownership of the entirety of said ocean. It gets a bit more complicated when you consider using up an entire asteroid, but I think that's an edge case we don't have to worry about for a long while
4/ Second, the EO doesn't change anything about intl law on space resources. Art. I of the 1967 OST says space is free for exploration and use by all, as long as you don't appropriate it
5/ So why issue an EO? Well, the space advocate community has a libertarian, pro-space settlement crowd that is very influential and they have long-standing concern about the 1979 Moon Treaty being more widely adopted. In particular, Art. XI:
6/ The aforementioned space settlement crowd feels the Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM) principle expressed in Art. XI is basically socialism in space, which is why they desperately want to nuke it from orbit
7/ Now here's the thing, the Moon Treaty isn't international law for everyone. It's only been signed by a small number of countries, none of which have the means to explore the Moon or really are space powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty
8/ Yes, there are a few countries and some prominent space law scholars still trying to push the Moon Treaty and establish it as law, but they're not making much headway. The Moon Treaty is not going to become Customary International Law anytime soon
9/ Most spacefaring countries agree with the US position that using resources is not appropriation, but there's a lot of uncertainty about where the boundaries are & how to actually put it into practice. And also concerns about not repeating mistakes we made here on Earth
10/ Hence, I very much agree with the EO's call for more bilateral and multilateral discussions to sort that out. @SWFoundation has been supporting one such effort through the Hague Group since 2016: https://swfound.org/news/all-news/2016/05/insight-building-common-understanding-on-space-resources-use
11/ In conversations with US officials, they are still supportive of these efforts and working with other "like-minded" countries to find a path forward. And you might be surprised to see who's on that list: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/wh-woos-potential-allies-including-china-for-space-mining/
12/ So why does the EO take such a firm stance of space as a global commons, when global commons is a real economic principle and different from CHM as expressed in the Moon Treaty?
13/ In short, it's about policing language and (dare I say it) political correctness. There is a lot of confusion and misuse (sometimes deliberate) of the term "global commons" as discussed in this paper I co-wrote with @ChrisJohnsonEsq https://swfound.org/media/205390/how-simple-terms-mislead-us-hertzfeld-johnson-weeden-iac-2015.pdf
14/ The space settlement crowd feels global commons is too close to CHM for comfort and could somehow lend support to the pro-Moon Treaty crowd so it too must go. They get annoyed every time the Pentagon compares space to the global commons of the high seas
14/ My personal view is that it is inaccurate to call ALL of outer space a global commons, just like it is inaccurate to call ALL of the ocean a global commons. It's a mix of different types of economic zones and some parts likely are global commons (say, the Sun) but not all
15/ So, why do I think this EO was unnecessary and might create blowback? For one, it unnecessarily pokes a few of our friends (Germany, France) publicly in the eye and we might just need them in other space policy / diplomatic situations
16/ Two, the rhetoric used in this EO, coupled with Trump's rhetoric on #SpaceForce provides a lot of cannon fodder for Russia/China to beat the US with diplomatically. That's going to make it harder for the US to achieve its goals as I outline here: https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Brian%20Weeden%20USCC%2025%20April.pdf
17/ Three, I fear making this such a prominent issue now will push it towards becoming a partisan issue and a future Dem POTUS/Congress might just decide it, along with anything else Trump touched, must go. That would be bad, IMHO
18/ One final note - I have no idea why the WH chose this issue to do as an Executive Order. EOs on space policy issues are extremely rare. In my doctoral research on Clinton, Bush, & Obama space policies I never found any (at least in the unclas domain)
19/ Most space policy is done as a Presidential Decision Directive (PDD), which has less force of law than an EO. Clinton Admin considered an EO for implementing their GPS policy, but never did. So no idea why now, and why on this particular issue /fin
You can follow @brianweeden.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: